If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Homeless hippies in San Francisco are forcibly redistributing "vacant" houses. You can't like "own" property, man   (sfgate.com) divider line 554
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

18928 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2010 at 4:39 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



554 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-06 01:08:03 AM
davidphogan: Cause you're the Canadian making claims about how US law works. Prove you know what you're talking about.
Kentucky is the strongest castle doctrine you can find? You're not trying very hard.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Conditions_o f_ use

But I'm not going to read it to you!


And since the article is about California:
http://www.self-defender.net/law4.htm

It's not my job to prove you right.
No, it's not. But if you want to argue this further for me, you might want to provide more than a vague, unsupported assertion that you know what you're talking about.

Why? Cause you don't like it? What's your reasoning there?
Since you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, let me spell it out for you. You see, killing people without strong rationale is against the law, is a detriment to public order, and is just generally bad manners. Ipso facto, someone who supports these concepts would be against such killing.
 
2010-04-06 01:08:04 AM
birdboy2000: Pla

I honestly didn't know that the homestead act still applied. Hasn't the arable land been pretty much used up, though?

As for garbage and such, that's paid for by taxes. I'm not suggesting that people not pay taxes - just that land be taken out of the hands of the landowners and given to the people.

And as for investment income... I honestly don't have much sympathy for people who have that kind of money losing some of it. Every investment involves risk, and political risk is one of 'em. That said, I wouldn't mind paying out compensation for land reform, so long as the compensation's gained by raised taxes on the wealthy who keep their wealth in forms other than land.

We used to be a nation of freeholders. What the hell went wrong?

/It might be a nice lifestyle to try. Not my cup of tea, though.
//Even if it hasn't, these guys don't know how to farm.


Whatever you say, grasshopper. You should move to Detroit.
 
2010-04-06 01:09:15 AM
pla: And if you call this "internet bravado", try breaking into my house some time.

You'll be called an ITG by someone who would be shocked IRL when they get their ass handed to them by a nerd.
 
2010-04-06 01:16:20 AM
ROBO-Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#Conditions_o f_ use

But I'm not going to read it to you!


First half of the first sentence you linked:

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked

There are more details at that link that show why you used a basically uncited Wikilink.

See also: Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

That could apply in this case.

ROBO-Jesus: And since the article is about California:
http://www.self-defender.net/law4.htm


That's nice. I didn't see anyone say "in California I'd do xxx." I lived there for about 5 years, I vaguely know these details.

ROBO-Jesus: It's not my job to prove you right.
No, it's not. But if you want to argue this further for me, you might want to provide more than a vague, unsupported assertion that you know what you're talking about.


Pot, kettle. You're the one making up how laws work in a country you (apparently) don't live in.

ROBO-Jesus: Since you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, let me spell it out for you. You see, killing people without strong rationale is against the law, is a detriment to public order, and is just generally bad manners. Ipso facto, someone who supports these concepts would be against such killing.

[citation needed]

The one making such a claim can back it up, right?
 
2010-04-06 01:20:04 AM
pla: Me? I'd pray I owned the property in Texas (aside from that state's other downsides) where they have simply the most rational laws regarding defense of private property in the country... Where "squatter hunting" just outright counts as legal, end of story.

And if you call this "internet bravado", try breaking into my house some time.


Rah-rah-rah! Your rugged individualism and bootstrappiness stuns and amazes me.

And, you know, Texan laws regarding defense of private property are fairly rational. Just like other states, its laws state that "a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force".
Link
. See? That means you can't just shoot or immolate or otherwise kill them just for being on your land. You have to demonstrate that they were threatening you. In the case of these protestors, considering they left when asked by policy, they clearly weren't threatening.

Anyway, don't bother responding. I'm adding you to my clods list.
 
2010-04-06 01:22:19 AM
ROBO-Jesus: And, you know, Texan laws regarding defense of private property are fairly rational. Just like other states, its laws state that "a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force".
Link. See? That means you can't just shoot or immolate or otherwise kill them just for being on your land. You have to demonstrate that they were threatening you. In the case of these protestors, considering they left when asked by policy, they clearly weren't threatening.


Where did you get your GED in law?
 
2010-04-06 01:35:27 AM
davidphogan: There are more details at that link that show why you used a basically uncited Wikilink.

Durrr.... 'wikilink' explains the basic principles of the laws and has a long list of quotations from specific state bills, plus links to the bills in question at the bottom of the page. None of them contract the idea that in order to use deadly force. Let's look at the NRA's page defending such laws:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.
Link. This is a basic principle of such laws: you're under some imminent threat. These protesters were unarmed and nonviolent.

Pot, kettle. You're the one making up how laws work in a country you (apparently) don't live in.

Where I'm from actually has nothing to do with the argument. You've yet to back up your assertions or demonstrate that mine were wrong.

[citation needed]
The one making such a claim can back it up, right?


In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

So,
"I support P, and Q, and R.
Y contravenes P, and Q, and R
Therefore, I do not support Y."

Understand?
 
2010-04-06 01:42:10 AM
Yeah! If people own property, then they can do what they want with it. I thought we all learned that lesson when we "bought" the Native Americans' land.
 
2010-04-06 01:44:43 AM
ROBO-Jesus: davidphogan: There are more details at that link that show why you used a basically uncited Wikilink.

Durrr.... 'wikilink' explains the basic principles of the laws and has a long list of quotations from specific state bills, plus links to the bills in question at the bottom of the page. None of them contract the idea that in order to use deadly force. Let's look at the NRA's page defending such laws:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.
Link. This is a basic principle of such laws: you're under some imminent threat. These protesters were unarmed and nonviolent.


Derp derp to you too, apparently it's all you understand. Forcibly enters, check. Unknown status of intruders, check. How do you know the intruders who just broke in aren't going to harm you? Should you pat them down first to check?
 
2010-04-06 01:51:00 AM
ROBO-Jesus: Link. This is a basic principle of such laws: you're under some imminent threat. These protesters were unarmed and nonviolent.

Did you even read your own link?
"One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person."

In other words someone entering your property is alone enough to legally justify shooting them because legally the assumption is that they are there to harm you. They can be perfectly unarmed but you can assume they are there to kill you in acting against them.
 
2010-04-06 01:56:05 AM
davidphogan: ROBO-Jesus: davidphogan: There are more details at that link that show why you used a basically uncited Wikilink.

Durrr.... 'wikilink' explains the basic principles of the laws and has a long list of quotations from specific state bills, plus links to the bills in question at the bottom of the page. None of them contract the idea that in order to use deadly force. Let's look at the NRA's page defending such laws:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.
Link. This is a basic principle of such laws: you're under some imminent threat. These protesters were unarmed and nonviolent.

Derp derp to you too, apparently it's all you understand. Forcibly enters, check. Unknown status of intruders, check. How do you know the intruders who just broke in aren't going to harm you? Should you pat them down first to check?


Bums are nice people just down on their luck. Just like in that movie "Life Stinks". They never get violent at all.
 
2010-04-06 02:02:14 AM
davidphogan: Derp derp to you too, apparently it's all you understand. Forcibly enters, check. Unknown status of intruders, check. How do you know the intruders who just broke in aren't going to harm you? Should you pat them down first to check?

You seem to be assigning to me an argument I am not making. Perhaps I have been unclear, but I am not arguing that people do not have a right to self-defense in their own homes - I am not arguing against the idea of "Castle Laws".

What I am arguing is that if you were to come home (or to a property you own) and found protesters or other squatters assembled there in a situation such as that in TFA, the proper, legal response is to call the police and have them removed and/or arrested. Going in guns ablazin' in order to satisfy your pathological hatred of 'hippies and bums' is not justified either morally or legally.

Futhermore, I'm arguing that people who advocate such a violent (and in some cases tortuously so) response are not only mentally unhinged, but also serve to undermine the concept of law, order, and civility by condoning actions which counteract those notions.
 
2010-04-06 02:03:20 AM
muck4doo: Bums are nice people just down on their luck. Just like in that movie "Life Stinks". They never get violent at all.

Quiet dear, the grownups are talking.
 
2010-04-06 02:07:50 AM
ROBO-Jesus: muck4doo: Bums are nice people just down on their luck. Just like in that movie "Life Stinks". They never get violent at all.

Quiet dear, the grownups are talking.


We should leave then.
 
2010-04-06 02:10:52 AM
ROBO-Jesus: You seem to be assigning to me an argument I am not making. Perhaps I have been unclear, but I am not arguing that people do not have a right to self-defense in their own homes - I am not arguing against the idea of "Castle Laws".

What I am arguing is that if you were to come home (or to a property you own) and found protesters or other squatters assembled there in a situation such as that in TFA, the proper, legal response is to call the police and have them removed and/or arrested. Going in guns ablazin' in order to satisfy your pathological hatred of 'hippies and bums' is not justified either morally or legally.

Futhermore, I'm arguing that people who advocate such a violent (and in some cases tortuously so) response are not only mentally unhinged, but also serve to undermine the concept of law, order, and civility by condoning actions which counteract those notions.


Ah, change the discussion halfway in. You're still not right. They trespassed with unknown intent. That's something you can legally get shot dead for in parts of the US. Just because you claim to be protesting something doesn't change that.

Lighting people on fire isn't okay, but people mentioning that I took as making a joke. Tasteless jokes are still legal, and nobody reasonably expects someone on Fark to actually barricade people in a place and burn it down. It's an over-the-top joke. You were acting serious earlier about the right to shoot someone dead from trespassing, or at least it seemed, so that's why I've dismissed you as a troll who was ignorant of local laws and customs who is just realizing he lost.

I'm just being honest about how your posts came across from the way you decided to phrase them regarding this topic. I don't like the idea of shooting anyone who cuts across your property, but when in Rome.....
 
2010-04-06 02:17:45 AM
davidphogan: ROBO-Jesus: You seem to be assigning to me an argument I am not making. Perhaps I have been unclear, but I am not arguing that people do not have a right to self-defense in their own homes - I am not arguing against the idea of "Castle Laws".

What I am arguing is that if you were to come home (or to a property you own) and found protesters or other squatters assembled there in a situation such as that in TFA, the proper, legal response is to call the police and have them removed and/or arrested. Going in guns ablazin' in order to satisfy your pathological hatred of 'hippies and bums' is not justified either morally or legally.

Futhermore, I'm arguing that people who advocate such a violent (and in some cases tortuously so) response are not only mentally unhinged, but also serve to undermine the concept of law, order, and civility by condoning actions which counteract those notions.

Ah, change the discussion halfway in. You're still not right. They trespassed with unknown intent. That's something you can legally get shot dead for in parts of the US. Just because you claim to be protesting something doesn't change that.

Lighting people on fire isn't okay, but people mentioning that I took as making a joke. Tasteless jokes are still legal, and nobody reasonably expects someone on Fark to actually barricade people in a place and burn it down. It's an over-the-top joke. You were acting serious earlier about the right to shoot someone dead from trespassing, or at least it seemed, so that's why I've dismissed you as a troll who was ignorant of local laws and customs who is just realizing he lost.

I'm just being honest about how your posts came across from the way you decided to phrase them regarding this topic. I don't like the idea of shooting anyone who cuts across your property, but when in Rome.....


He might be back on his charging cross right now.
 
2010-04-06 02:40:19 AM
davidphogan: Ah, change the discussion halfway in. You're still not right. They trespassed with unknown intent. That's something you can legally get shot dead for in parts of the US. Just because you claim to be protesting something doesn't change that.

I don't see myself changing the discussion here. My initial posts indicated my disgust at people advocating extreme violence against the protesters. You countered that such violence was not unlawful "in many states" and a debate enused. For some reason you didn't provide any evidence to back up your assertions. I admit, now actually having read a sizable number of the statues, that a number of states do have laws as you cited.

davidphogan:Lighting people on fire isn't okay, but people mentioning that I took as making a joke. Tasteless jokes are still legal, and nobody reasonably expects someone on Fark to actually barricade people in a place and burn it down. It's an over-the-top joke.

Tasteless jokes are fine (fark, I'm on 4chan half the day), but in a number of places here they didn't come off as 'jokes' so much as some hateful fantasy. Whether the posters would actually go through with such a plan is a completely other story, but nonetheless they supported the notion that such violence is somehow civilly justifiable.

davidphogan:You were acting serious earlier about the right to shoot someone dead from trespassing, or at least it seemed, so that's why I've dismissed you as a troll who was ignorant of local laws and customs who is just realizing he lost.

I concede this point. Personally, I believe its reprehensible to shoot someone merely for being on your property, and to do so in cases when better options exist is a sign of sociopath. But it's not always illegal! In the case of TFA, it would have been, and I should have been more careful in what I argued.

davidphogan:I'm just being honest about how your posts came across from the way you decided to phrase them regarding this topic. I don't like the idea of shooting anyone who cuts across your property, but when in Rome.....

I humbly accept your rebuke. Nonetheless, this could whole ordeal could have been avoided by simply pointing to a relevant state law in your second post!
 
2010-04-06 02:51:20 AM
ROBO-Jesus: I don't see myself changing the discussion here. My initial posts indicated my disgust at people advocating extreme violence against the protesters. You countered that such violence was not unlawful "in many states" and a debate enused. For some reason you didn't provide any evidence to back up your assertions. I admit, now actually having read a sizable number of the statues, that a number of states do have laws as you cited.

Fair enough, I just expect the first person to jump in with details to be the one to defend them. When those facts don't line up with any reality I've seen I expect them to be defended by the person making the statements though.

ROBO-Jesus: Tasteless jokes are fine (fark, I'm on 4chan half the day), but in a number of places here they didn't come off as 'jokes' so much as some hateful fantasy. Whether the posters would actually go through with such a plan is a completely other story, but nonetheless they supported the notion that such violence is somehow civilly justifiable.

It's Fark. There are a lot of comments made based on theoretical points rather than reality. I think you now have a better idea of why I saw those as fallacious when I saw them used as arguments.

ROBO-Jesus: I concede this point. Personally, I believe its reprehensible to shoot someone merely for being on your property, and to do so in cases when better options exist is a sign of sociopath. But it's not always illegal! In the case of TFA, it would have been, and I should have been more careful in what I argued.

I'd hope every discussion can be talked out. I'd always prefer to work things out with someone I disagree with than have violence be the answer. But, that wasn't what we discussed. Thank you though for being mature enough to discuss this situation.

ROBO-Jesus: I humbly accept your rebuke. Nonetheless, this could whole ordeal could have been avoided by simply pointing to a relevant state law in your second post!

I think we can make that a two-way street, but I do thank you for the honest response and discourse. I'll admit that I take it for granted that I expect people on the internet know how self-defense laws work in the US through various states, and that's not really fair.
 
Ral
2010-04-06 03:03:23 AM
albo: love that sign

"Take what you need. Live by what you desire."


I seriously want to find the person who came up with that slogan and slap them. Hard.

The entitlement, socialistic sentiment expressed is utterly repulsive. "Take stuff that doesn't belong to you, stuff that other people created and own. Do whatever you want."
 
2010-04-06 03:16:58 AM
davidphogan: It's Fark. There are a lot of comments made based on theoretical points rather than reality. I think you now have a better idea of why I saw those as fallacious when I saw them used as arguments.

Well, my Boobies itself was rather aggrandizing toward these comments. I do recognize that the internet tends to generate far more extreme hyperbole and rhetoric, but nonetheless I stand by what said in regards to poster who make such comments. In my experience, behind all the internet toughguyism seems to lie a real misanthropy and disdain for democratic civility. Advocating the torture and/or slaughter of people you ideologically disagree with is dangerous, and should be challenged whenever it is presented. It's one thing to joke (as someone did above), that, in Georgia, they would be shot. It's another thing entirely to construct a fantasy where you are the shooter.

davidphogan: I think we can make that a two-way street, but I do thank you for the honest response and discourse. I'll admit that I take it for granted that I expect people on the internet know how self-defense laws work in the US through various states, and that's not really fair.

It's been fun. I was vaguely familiar with the laws in more 'liberal' states, but was unaware of the more recent and extreme changes. I think my point is, that had I been right, it's a lot harder for me to go through the statutes of all 50 states than it is for you to provide a single counter-example.
 
2010-04-06 03:25:03 AM
ROBO-Jesus: I think my point is, that had I been right, it's a lot harder for me to go through the statutes of all 50 states than it is for you to provide a single counter-example.

Texas was repeatedly cited, so I assumed you'd at least checked their laws. At the same time, I should have mentioned it rather than assuming you'd have checked them. Fair enough.
 
2010-04-06 03:27:06 AM
treesloth: Aero28: So your basically saying a bunch of lazy farkheads hit with a little dose of reality are actually gonna take down property owners?

More like it wouldn't surprise me to see them put up a fight. Giving up a life of laziness and living on the work of others can be so abhorrent to those that believe themselves entitled that they'd rather fight than lose it. Property owners in England, if I recall from a fairly recent Fark thread, were afraid of trying to reclaim their property for just that reason. In the meantime, the squatters were stripping the house of every item of value and left gutted wrecks.


Well were talking about Amuricah here. Not some evil socialist nanny country.
 
2010-04-06 03:45:15 AM
RD:
"If they're just using it to rent out to others to make money, they're not using it."
You mean like how it was rented out before to Mr. Morales?
 
2010-04-06 06:56:59 AM
schattenteufel: Need does not dictate entitlement.

IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
 
2010-04-06 07:18:13 AM
Joe Blowme: We'll fight you for it.

Sounds good to me. Since you can't afford a place to live I'm betting you can't afford a gun or ammo either.
 
2010-04-06 07:42:06 AM
I am getting a kick out of all the angry people wailing about "the rule of law" and "liberal commies." The fact is that I don't care about what you think is right or what you believe. If I want something I will take it and if it happens to be yours, then you are getting beat down.

What we have is a bunch of people who have benefited from a corrupt and oppressive system for so long that they think they acquired what they have solely by their own means. Sorry buddy, but 450 years of systemic oppression and slavery has propped you up to where you are.

Now you want stand on your hill and look down on people who have less than you while you strip away the last of the safety nets that exist in this country. . . all the while you celebrate your success as being self generated.

It doesn't matter if you know who I am, because I am everywhere. Sorry buddy, you pushed the self-destruct button, and now everything you stand for will be ripped down piece by piece.

And when foreign interests finally control every last institution in this country. Your homeless starving grandson will have a beat up picture of your smug ass and will boast to his toothless, emaciated friend about how his "grand pappy had a house and a car all at the same time!"
 
2010-04-06 07:45:54 AM
schrute_buck: Joe Blowme: We'll fight you for it.

Sounds good to me. Since you can't afford a place to live I'm betting you can't afford a gun or ammo either.


farm1.static.flickr.com

This you by any chance?
 
2010-04-06 08:32:26 AM
palelizard: albo: love that sign

"Take what you need. Live by what you desire."

how incredibly infantile

Yeah. Peaceful anarchy is all well and good until someone comes along with a baseball bat and says "Yeah, this is mine." (or until you have to share your food with the farker who always spends his earnings on weed and smokes it all before you get some)These guys are a bunch of assholes.


THIS
 
2010-04-06 08:37:29 AM
Okay then, let's put it this way. If I owned two houses and decided to use one for storage instead of renting it out then hippies and bums think that gives them the right to take my property since it isn't bring used in the way they want it to be used.

I don't believe hippies and bums use their lives in the way most of America expects them to and certainly aren't living up to their potential. Does that give me the right to take their lives away from them?

/Please say yes
 
2010-04-06 08:55:39 AM
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

I'd have a bunch of dogs. They'd eat like kings.
 
2010-04-06 09:09:59 AM
panteece 2010-04-06 07:42:06 AM

I am getting a kick out of all the angry people wailing about "the rule of law" and "liberal commies." The fact is that I don't care about what you think is right or what you believe. If I want something I will take it and if it happens to be yours, then you are getting beat down.

What we have is a bunch of people who have benefited from a corrupt and oppressive system for so long that they think they acquired what they have solely by their own means. Sorry buddy, but 450 years of systemic oppression and slavery has propped you up to where you are.

Now you want stand on your hill and look down on people who have less than you while you strip away the last of the safety nets that exist in this country. . . all the while you celebrate your success as being self generated.

It doesn't matter if you know who I am, because I am everywhere. Sorry buddy, you pushed the self-destruct button, and now everything you stand for will be ripped down piece by piece.

And when foreign interests finally control every last institution in this country. Your homeless starving grandson will have a beat up picture of your smug ass and will boast to his toothless, emaciated friend about how his "grand pappy had a house and a car all at the same time!"




LOL
True comedy.
This is one of the funniest Fark threads in a long time.
The great thing is many posters are actually serious and not trolling.



/Power to the people, man!
 
2010-04-06 10:04:42 AM
doopid
Oh, it has a capital A, so it is now a proper noun. WTF dude? Is there now an Anarchy Party. Is it a viable alterative to the GOP or Democratic Party? Seriously, anarchy, with a "a" or a "A" is still defined as "without a ruler". It does not work. Society cannot function without a ruler. Not because people would not like it. I bet most people would. The problem is that there will always be those that decided that want/should be in charge. Eventually someone will be in charge. They may be benovolent, they may be sadistic, but someone will eventually be in charge. Odds are that factions will form and things will get ugly.

Lowercase-a anarchy is a term for a state of disorganization and violence, the stereotypical everyone's running around killing and raping scenario. Of course you'll get a warlord in that situation, because people will gravitate to whoever will provide safety. That's not Anarchy, which is a society-wide acephalous federation of autonomous communities. It's actually very structured and organized- it's just that no one's in charge and "because I said so" or "because the majority said so" doesn't fly as a reason. It can only be maintained by constant vigilance against every slight tyranny and oppressive relationship, but the enforcement is self-managed and decentralized, giving it a much better shot than any governmental system.

What exactly is authoritarian or non sensical about current property rights? ... I decide I no longer want the property, so I agree to give it to someone else in return for concideration

Why do you need something in return for the property?

How exactly are they forced in to exploitive relationships? By taking out a mortgage they could not afford?

Most people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness aren't in that situation for that reason.
 
2010-04-06 11:25:16 AM
VespaGuy
That's not true! Haven't you been reading RanDomino's posts? People LOVE To work, both out of boredom and because they want to provide!! Why relax and enjoy life when you can spend 40 hours a week in an office/factory so that others can sleep late and hang out all day? Its a perfect society!

The reasons work sucks is because it's alienating, and people work because they have to, not because they want to.
People don't work to produce, we work to get money- we're selling our time, the very constitution of our lives. There shouldn't be any difference between working and living- it should all flow together as one enjoyable and productive activity, which work can be when done to directly produce necessary things and amenities for one's self and community, and when the production process is itself enjoyable and under the producer's control.

and, again, if you think someone's being a lazy good-for-nothing bum, no one should ever be able to force you to give them anything. how many times do I have to say that?
 
2010-04-06 12:19:20 PM
oh, now I remember what I was going to say- wish Fark had an edit button...

So, none of you think people will work without immediate and direct financial reward. But if people don't work, and if the government doesn't exist to forcibly make other people pay for their needs, then will people just starve to death rather than work? If the productive people are well-organized enough to defend themselves from any hypothetical mobs o' looters, then either you'll see a mass die-off of lazy good-for-nothing bums, or they'll decide to start being productive. How are either of those outcomes bad, exactly?
 
2010-04-06 01:12:29 PM
What about a potato? Can I own that?
 
2010-04-06 01:38:35 PM
Gangway Fathead: fsbilly: 2wolves: On a millennial scale, you're only renting.

The universe is indifferent.

That's why I love the universe and recommend it to all of my friends.


I dunno. I think the universe is kind of a dick, personally.
 
2010-04-06 01:54:53 PM
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

I trade the food for blowjobs. Also, they can do my yard work.
 
2010-04-06 01:58:18 PM
RanDomino: oh, now I remember what I was going to say- wish Fark had an edit button...

So, none of you think people will work without immediate and direct financial reward. But if people don't work, and if the government doesn't exist to forcibly make other people pay for their needs, then will people just starve to death rather than work? If the productive people are well-organized enough to defend themselves from any hypothetical mobs o' looters, then either you'll see a mass die-off of lazy good-for-nothing bums, or they'll decide to start being productive. How are either of those outcomes bad, exactly?


Its the defend themselves part. Want the end results of anarchy/Anarchy see Somalia. Human nature is a mother farker we are such nasty little monkeys
 
2010-04-06 02:10:45 PM
thelordofcheese: What about a potato? Can I own that?

A whole potato? That seems extreme. I'll be by for half of it.
 
2010-04-06 02:24:59 PM
pla: birdboy2000 : Take the land away from the landed elite and give it to the people. America needs land reform now!

Did you know, my naive hippy friend, that the US Homestead act (from 18-frickin-62) still applies? You too can, for free, get your 40 acres (actually expanded to 160 in 1909) and a mule?


While I agree with your spirit, regrettably, the U.S. Homestead Act is no more. From the ever-trustworthy Wikipedia:

"The end of homesteading

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ended homesteading;[4][17] the government believed that the best use of public lands was for them to remain in government control. The only exception to this new policy was in Alaska, for which the law allowed homesteading until 1986.[4]

The last claim under this Act was made by Ken Deardorff for 80 acres (32 hectares) of land on the Stony River in southwestern Alaska. He fulfilled all requirements of the Homestead Act in 1979, but did not receive his deed until May 1988. Therefore, he is the last person to receive title to land claimed under the provisions of the Homestead Act."

As far as this entire situation goes, here's my take, for anyone still reading this far.

If you have money, and use this money to legally purchase real estate, especially housing, you deserve to have certain rights within the law governing that property, including the right to use it for any purpose allowed by law, and the right to not have it occupied without your permission. This is the only reasonable course of action in a civilized society regarding housing in particular; otherwise, there is simply no incentive for people to own their own property. I mean, if someone can simply take it over whenever you are not using it for a purpose that someone agrees with, what's the point?

I do believe that everyone should have a safe and reasonably comfortable place to live. However, there is plenty of unoccupied space for which those with the resources to do so can make perfectly cromulent deals with the owners (as mentioned before in this thread, Section 8 allows for just that) so that people in severe financial distress can have some place to live, at least until they can attain a firm financial footing and afford to rent or buy a place on their own.

Nobody should have the power or authority to take away privately owned land or housing without justly compensating those who own it. And I say all this as a progressive. Misapplied eminent domain is unfair and uncivilized. What the activists did in this particular situation, without government approval, is simply breaking laws that have very specific protective purposes. The people who occupied the duplex went beyond their individual rights, and infringed upon the owner's rights.

Do I agree that the owner was right to evict the previous tenants? It doesn't matter. I'm not the owner. I'm not the law. As long as the owner acted legally, the owner had the right to evict. It would have been nice if the owner had kept renting the duplex, but clearly he was under no obligation to do so as I understand the local laws. He paid the former tenant's relocation cost and gave a year's notice, which is quite reasonable.

So yes, I do believe that nobody should be homeless, but I also happen to believe that a homeless person can't just take over an unused home belonging to another person. Everyone's rights must be protected equally, or there's no point in having a society.
 
2010-04-06 02:56:30 PM
thelordofcheese: What about a potato? Can I own that?

Only if you let it rot.

If you eat it, you're only renting it.
 
2010-04-06 03:06:27 PM
RanDomino: If you want something I've got, ask for it, and I'll either give it or not. If I want something you've got, either give it for free or don't give it at all. If you think of me as just a source of profit, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I want my society to be populated by my friends, not heartless business partners. We'll give freely to each other, and you can join or piss off.

this is possible in today's society. don't want to deal with heartless business partners? don't, stick to mooching from and giving to your "friends."
 
2010-04-06 03:47:17 PM
crazytrpr
Its the defend themselves part.

which is why I said 'hypothetical'. So in order for that to be a deal breaker, you have to first assume that the idea is to suddenly break with the old rules for property ownership everywhere at the same time, then you have to assume that there's nothing in its place, then you have to assume that people are generally unorganized, then you have to assume that the generally-unorganized people would generally collapse into mass pillaging, and finally you have to assume that the small number of organized people would not be able to defend themselves. So there's about 5 roadblocks before we even get to that stage.


MikeBoomshadow
I mean, if someone can simply take it over whenever you are not using it for a purpose that someone agrees with, what's the point?

No one should be able to take property that you're not using at the moment; they should be able to take it when you're done using it.

So what's the point of owning property? To use it. There shouldn't be any other point to owning anything.

So yes, I do believe that nobody should be homeless, but I also happen to believe that a homeless person can't just take over an unused home belonging to another person. Everyone's rights must be protected equally, or there's no point in having a society.

Your entire argument hinges on the law observing title-based property rights. What if the law instead observed usage-based property rights? All else being equal, wouldn't that still be a society of law? just, y'know, a different law... we do that all the time already through legislative action and constitutional amendments. Why would society collapse if another rule was changed? See? If you're going to argue for title-based property rights, you have to argue its merit over usage-based property rights, not just assume it!
 
2010-04-06 05:09:30 PM
RanDomino: VespaGuy
That's not true! Haven't you been reading RanDomino's posts? People LOVE To work, both out of boredom and because they want to provide!! Why relax and enjoy life when you can spend 40 hours a week in an office/factory so that others can sleep late and hang out all day? Its a perfect society!

The reasons work sucks is because it's alienating, and people work because they have to, not because they want to.


Wrong. The reason work (sometimes) sucks is because the alternative to working is recreation. For every hour we spend at work, we have one less hour to spend doing something that we truly enjoy. Sure, some people actually enjoy going to work, but given the choice, most people would be doing something else

People don't work to produce, we work to get money- we're selling our time, the very constitution of our lives.

And because of the incentive to "get money", we get innovation and discovery. We get new technologies that improve our lives, give us MORE leisure time, and make less desirable tasks quicker and easier.

There shouldn't be any difference between working and living- it should all flow together as one enjoyable and productive activity,

There will always be unenjoyable jobs that need to be done. In your dream-world, you seem to think that someone will always rise to the occasion (I'm assuming people in your world travel by unicorn). Unfortunately, human nature does not work that way.

In your "utopia" there is no motivation to work at less desirable jobs and no incentive for innovation.

which work can be when done to directly produce necessary things and amenities for one's self and community, and when the production process is itself enjoyable and under the producer's control.

That would be great if the only tasks that needed to be done were lollipop testing and puppy petting. Unfortunately, someone needs to clean septic tanks, pick up garbage, and do other less desirable tasks. There will always be someone who refuses to do it, and there will always be someone who will be willing to do it for them for a fee.

Your utopia is laughable.

and, again, if you think someone's being a lazy good-for-nothing bum, no one should ever be able to force you to give them anything. how many times do I have to say that?

Right. I won't be forced to give property, I just won't be able to stop people from taking it. Pa-TA-to, Pa-TAH-to.
 
2010-04-06 05:27:28 PM
panteece: I am getting a kick out of all the angry people wailing about "the rule of law" and "liberal commies." The fact is that I don't care about what you think is right or what you believe. If I want something I will take it and if it happens to be yours, then you are getting beat down.


Sure we are - but let me guess - you then have to rush off to be at the gym in 26 minutes?
 
2010-04-06 06:21:02 PM
RanDomino:

So what's the point of owning property? To use it.


Wrong. We own property not so that we can use it, but that so that we can use it when we want, how we want, and in the condition we want it. Your utopian dream-world can never make those guarantees.

There shouldn't be any other point to owning anything.

But there is, despite what you think "should" or "shouldn't" be.
 
2010-04-06 06:42:45 PM
VespaGuy
Wrong. The reason work (sometimes) sucks is because the alternative to working is recreation. For every hour we spend at work, we have one less hour to spend doing something that we truly enjoy. Sure, some people actually enjoy going to work, but given the choice, most people would be doing something else
...
There will always be unenjoyable jobs that need to be done. In your dream-world, you seem to think that someone will always rise to the occasion (I'm assuming people in your world travel by unicorn). Unfortunately, human nature does not work that way.


Human nature does, in fact, work that way, because it feels great to contribute and be appreciated and to have a finished product. Unpleasant jobs can be rotated or shared or some other system developed, because odds are if those affected have any stake in their community (which they will if they own it), they'll work something out.

And because of the incentive to "get money", we get innovation and discovery. We get new technologies that improve our lives, give us MORE leisure time, and make less desirable tasks quicker and easier.

That sounds good in theory, but in fact the happiest and most leisurely people in the world work the least, own practically nothing, and live in the desert (I mean people who were skipped over by civilization, not back-to-the-land hippies in Arizona, although their conditions are similar and they seem to be satisfied). Capitalism means more stuff but more stress, not to mention that the increased productivity is largely squandered on absurdly wasteful toys for the rich and increasingly-sophisticated ways of killing each other.

Unfortunately, someone needs to clean septic tanks, pick up garbage, and do other less desirable tasks.

If no one wants to clean septic tanks, they'll stop being used and a different system will have to be developed. They're a ridiculous wastes of perfectly good fertilizer anyway.
When people have a stake in their community, they won't just throw trash on the ground. If not, it's their problem. Should I have to clean up their mess if they don't even care, after they've been given control of their situation?

Right. I won't be forced to give property, I just won't be able to stop people from taking it. Pa-TA-to, Pa-TAH-to.

If you stop using property, then in a usage-based ownership system it's abandoned, so you're not giving anything to anyone. If you stop using it, it's not yours anymore. Then if some lazy good-for-nothing bum shows up and starts using it, what do you care? You're done with it, right? What's that you say; you weren't done with it? Then you didn't abandon it, it's still yours, and the lazy good-for-nothing bum doesn't have any right to take it in the first place!

Do you understand the idea of "usage-based property ownership" as opposed to "title-based property ownership" now?
 
2010-04-06 06:52:52 PM
VespaGuy
We own property not so that we can use it, but that so that we can use it when we want, how we want, and in the condition we want it.

I'd say that qualifies as "using", yes. Just make it clear that you're still using something if you leave it otherwise apparently abandoned. If you just find something, stick your name on it, and then leave and never return, though, you're a douche, and don't expect anyone to honor your claim. There aren't any hard-and-fast rules, because Legalism cannot encompass everything, and trying to do so just results in authoritarianism. The enforcement mechanism is community.

Your utopian dream-world can never make those guarantees.

Like the current world can?
Are you saying people should be entitled to guaranteed property protection?

Which is worse: every once in a while there's some confusion about whether or not someone's done using something; or millions of people are kept homeless with more than enough housing for them all kept empty just so some bank or speculator or landlord can make a buck, and all the taxes and government and violence that goes with such a system?
 
2010-04-06 09:14:35 PM
RanDomino: Do you understand the idea of "usage-based property ownership" as opposed to "title-based property ownership" now?

So you do agree these 'protesters' were completely wrong for invading the property he uses?
 
2010-04-06 10:41:26 PM
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

Yes.
 
Displayed 50 of 554 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report